Sunday 23 August 2020


Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

23 August  2020



Separation of Powers Claim Dismisses Itself

Every job is undertaken with a combination of Belief, intellectual calculations and desires. The stronger the Belief component the stronger the ultimate value. That ultimate value, forms the foundation of the next job undertaken by us. In some instances the original belief is maintained. In others it is strengthened. The weakest outcomes would confirm weakening of  Belief. In Court language – these three are classified respectively as follows:

1.     Deserving of support of Discretionary Powers

2.     Requiring Evidence

3.     Deserving dismissal on the basis they are  ‘frivolous and/or vexatious’


The President of Sri Lanka declared that he was committed to One law. As per Adaderana -  President’s  legal counsel who is now Justice Minister ‘Ali Sabry insists on establishing separate court to hear child abuse cases’

Is this because Dr Sabry is aware of the differences in cultures not only due to age but also due to cultures where a cultural following in one could be interpreted as abuse in another. This is important in protecting the dignity of Muslims who treat their women as minorities /juniors which is actually a protection from ‘outsiders’. Recently a Muslim contractor here in Sydney excused himself from shaking hands with me on the claim that it was against his culture. So I said to instead shake the hand of my husband twice. This he did and we were even.


Recently I helped formulate the following conclusion in relation to women:


[If we therefore commence gender based education at an early stage – men also will be more intellectually aware of the difficulties experienced by women. We observe some men respecting their mothers and sisters. This is due to their wisdom in the diverse nature of women. If this is shared with society – then violence against women would be close to zero tolerance level. ]

Such respect is like contribution to ‘retirement benefits’ which confirm our financial freedom in old age. In this instance the respect goes towards valuing elders who have taken care of us even though we ‘look’ different to them and will not be able to return their work - unit for unit. When young ones respect they settle their debt to elders. Together they become One. That is time based seniority. This automatically develops a structure that protects the relationship and our travel through the common pathway to become One.  Parents who take outcome based returns and children who fail to respect parents damage that protection. This includes children who leave parents in Aged care  facilities where oldies have to get used to different ways. That may be the best option available to some but it also may tempt some young ones to take the easy way out. Once they become One – they know each other’s needs and willingness to serve.


As Opposed to Time based differences which usually have senior-junior relationships, Diversity based differences which are ‘Place’ based - require one to respect the other as Equal. This starts with gender based connections that are not already bound by senior-junior relationships. Between husband and wife, where there is a wide age gap there is already a senior-junior relationship. Likewise where there is status gap based on work that requires investment in common culture outside that relationship / unit. This usually is attributed to the father. Where however both are working – they are entitled to Equal status outside home.


Diverse cultures are thus entitled to Equal status unless there is an overriding relationship through a common structure such as the workplace. When status is taken beyond this,  it promotes abuse of power and hence the violation of rights that we are born with. Often, premature freedom leads to such violation including rape – due to weak relationships. When both sides in an apparent relationship take ‘freedom’ due to this cultural distance - they lose their way and never reach the common destination of Oneness.


This was highlighted as follows through an email under the heading ‘Tamils have only two MPs to speak for them in parliament.’:


[It is a well known fact that 'Unity' will never prevail among the Tamils during their

seventy years of their political struggle. In keeping with that determination, in the recent

election in Sri Lanka, the Tamil candidates divided themselves into five groups in seeking

the votes. Some politicians under the guise of working for the Tamil's rights worked for themselves.

Few others were keen, as usual, in obtaining ministerial posts while some others were only interested in seeking frivolous favors to keep their voters happy.

In the circumstances Tamils have only two MPs left to speak for their rights. Please see below.]

Mr. Wigneswaran delivers his maiden speech in parliament.

Gajan Ponnambalam gives his introductory speech.



Out of the two, Mr Wigneswaran’s has drawn criticism from Sinhalese Politicians. If they were without substance,  one could dismiss them on the basis that they were frivolous – a description used by the above author indicating opposition to TNA members of Parliament. If the speech had confirmed belief – one could excuse the reactions as frivolous.  But to me they did  not confirm belief in Independence of the group that Mr Wigneswaran claimed to speak on behalf of.  They certainly did not represent my belief as a Jaffna Tamil.


Mr Wigneswaran in fact confirmed that he was representing Colombo Tamils like himself. He began the speech in Tamil, and ended it in Sinhalese with English thrown in-between.  


I see an interesting pattern of truth  in these elections. SLFP which began with Sinhala Only Policy, followed by Buddhism foremost article in the Constitution – ended up with one seat in National Parliament. THAT is from Jaffna where Sinhala Buddhists are a small minority. Mr Wigneswaran’s party – the TMTK which continues to carry the separation claim and used Tamil foremost and Hindu looks in common parliament – is the equal opposition to that one seat of SLFP but without majority for TMTK in any particular local area.  As per the common understanding of the Jaffna District voter, a member of Parliament must get 50% plus one in their area to represent them. One who gets a seat only at overall district level, due to preference as an individual does not actually represent an area but gets the popular overall vote.  Mr Wigneswaran was chosen as an individual through popular vote and not his party the TMTK. Many Tamil voters would have voted for the Chief Minister representing TNA through whose ticket Mr Wigneswaran came into Jaffna.  There is no heritage value to his Party. That was how truth evolved to deny Ms Sashikala Raviraj a seat in Parliament but gave it to Mr Wigneswaran.  Ms Sashikala Raviraj is a new entrant and without high status beyond her local area. Hence her seat went to Mr Wigneswaran who continues to actively highlight his judicial status.


The real value that Mr Wigneswaran relies on is his Judicial heritage. If he truly cared about Jaffna – he would have focused on improving Jaffna’s Judicial order which is far behind that of Colombo. Mr Wigneswaran’s entry into National Parliament was due to his personal standing based on Judicial status. Hence the weak performance in National Parliament which did not seem natural. What a waste! Mr Wigneswaran’s  is the lone voice opposing SLFP’s ‘Sinhala Buddhism only’ ghost which has migrated to Jaffna in the body of Tamil Mr Angajan Ramanathan. It began with dual mentality due to living off judicial status while claiming Separation of Powers. No logic at all.  Hence the Judicial ghost opposes the Buddhism ghost in the name of Jaffna.

No comments:

Post a Comment